From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755351AbYIAHja (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2008 03:39:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751460AbYIAHjV (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2008 03:39:21 -0400 Received: from vuizook.err.no ([194.24.252.247]:46485 "EHLO vuizook.err.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751117AbYIAHjU (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2008 03:39:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:38:45 +0200 From: Mike Hommey To: Goswin von Brederlow Cc: Tejun Heo , fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, greg@kroah.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, miklos@szeredi.hu Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCHSET] CUSE: implement CUSE Message-ID: <20080901073844.GA5376@glandium.org> References: <1219947544-666-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20080829055000.GB18930@glandium.org> <48B78EBA.609@kernel.org> <3bc8237c0808291150t2f18ba64vf445bdf4c2c8360c@mail.gmail.com> <48B93D68.6040506@kernel.org> <20080830185613.GC12546@glandium.org> <87iqtggwng.fsf@frosties.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87iqtggwng.fsf@frosties.localdomain> Organization: glandium.org X-GPG-Fingerprint: A479 A824 265C B2A5 FC54 8D1E DE4B DA2C 54FD 2A58 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mh@glandium.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on vaio.glandium.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 09:20:19AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Mike Hommey writes: > > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 02:30:32PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> Yeah, compared to loopback over FUSE, anything would have less > >> problem. :-) I don't know much about nbd but it's pretty much solving > >> the same problem so I think it's logical to extend nbd including > >> giving it a new transport if necessary? Or is there something > >> fundamentally better when it's done via FUSE? > > > > My gutt feeling is that it would have less overhead when done via FUSE > > than through nbd, but that could be wrong. > > > > Mike > > What I would hope is that BUSE would add some zero copy transport in > there. A way to just redirect the BIOs from the BUSE device to other > block devices without copying the data around. > > But maybe BUSE is a bad name for that. That would be more a DUSE - > Device mapper in USEr space. That already exists. http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/DmUserspace Mike